Important Books & Reports

Glyphosate/Roundup, falsely claimed by Monsanto to be safe and harmless, has become the world’s most widely and pervasively used herbicide; it has brought rising tides of birth defects, cancers, fatal kidney disease, sterility, and dozens of other illnesses - more

Ban GMOs Now - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Dr. Eva Sirinathsinghji

Health & environmental hazards
especially in the light of the new genetics - more

Living Rainbow H2O - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

A unique synthesis of the latest findings in the quantum physics and chemistry of water that tells you why water is the “means, medium, and message of life” - more

The Rainbow and the Worm - the Physics of Organisms - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

“Probably the Most Important Book for the Coming Scientific Revolution” - more

Bt Cotton Directly Linked to Indian Farmer Suicides in Rain-Fed Areas

Study finds farmers driven to suicide from increased costs of not
being able to save seeds and increased chemical inputs, coupled with inadequate
access to agronomic information Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji

A
new study directly links the crisis of suicides among
Indian farmers to Bt cotton adoption in rain-fed areas, where most of India’s cotton
is grown. Many fall into a cycle of debt from the purchase of expensive,
commercialised GM seeds and chemical inputs that then fail to yield
enough to sustain farmers’ livelihoods (see [1] Farmer Suicides and
Bt Cotton Nightmare Unfolding in India, SiS 45).

Using
physiologically based demographic modelling (PBDM) methods to assess the
dynamics of weather and pests on cotton yield, this latest study led by
Professor Andrew Gutierrez at University of California, Berkeley [2] calls into
question the relevancy of Bt cotton, considering that the main target of the Bt
cotton, the pink bollworm, only attacks irrigated but not rain-fed cotton.

The PBDM method, unlike previous studies that focus on econometric analysis of Bt cotton yields, looks at the
holistic biological and ecological underpinnings of crop yield. Using it to
simulate prospective yields of rain-fed non-Bt cotton from 1980 to 2010 and its
relationship to pink bollworm dynamics, the model provides a historical
baseline measurement of the Indian cotton situation prior to the 1970s green
revolution, where pink bollworm was the major pest of Indian cotton. Since the
1970s, insecticide technology has led to ecological destruction including
outbreaks of formerly secondary pests, insecticide resistance and damage to
human health. This was followed by Bt technology that has also had
negative effects on Indian cotton agriculture.

Inputting parameters on cotton growth from field
experiments in India, the researchers estimated the daily
effects of water stress on cotton phenology, growth and yield formation,
predicting the daily growth dynamic of leaves, stems and roots as well as fruit
and yield across 4 states (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat and Andhra
Padresh) where most of the suicides are occurring. The model was then run using
daily weather conditions (from the Climate Forecast System Re-analysis of the
United States for Environmental Prediction). Pink bollworm dynamics were
modelled by capturing the phenology of dormancy induction as regulated by
decreased temperature and photoperiod, and spring emergence from diapause as a
function of temperature.

The results show that rain-fed cotton’s protection from
pink bollworm arises from the timing of their fruiting season. Irrigated cotton has two fruiting cycles in a season,
which is synchronised to pink bollworm emergence from diapause and development
of the next generation larvae, while rain-fed cotton only has one cycle per
season, fruiting only after the new adult bollworms have emerged (Figure 1).
This makes Bt technology irrelevant for rain-fed cotton.

Instead, the timing, distribution and
quantity of monsoon rains is the main determinant of yield; as well as other
factors such as planting density and mean daily temperature. As shown in Figure
2, rainfall in Yaratval, Maharashtra correlates with yield. These
results led the authors to conclude that in low yield areas with high
variability, Bt cotton does not provide assurances for yield of rain-fed
cotton. And, short season non-Bt cotton is a viable option for both irrigated
and rain-fed areas.

Bt
cotton does not reduce insecticide use, increases cost burden

Bt
crops were introduced to India in 2002 and by 2012
there were more than 1128 Bt hybrid varieties grown on 92 % of cotton growing
areas [3, 4]. They are promoted on the basis of reducing pesticide use but
despite initial declines, insecticide use in 2013 reached 2000 levels while
yields have plateaued nationally and farmer suicides increased in some areas
[5]. Industry has also promoted the use of insecticides and farmers, in order
to avoid crop failure, likely applied increasing quantities of pesticides that
do not boost yields but may instead increase ecological disruption and
risk of crop failure. Industry has exploited this information gap to sell their
Bt crops and insecticides. With the sustained use of insecticides added on to
the costs of expensive Bt cotton seeds, farmers have been pushed into further
economic distress.

Computing
the average profits per hectare in rain-fed cotton (revenues from sale of seed
cotton minus average costs of seed, insecticide and other production costs) the
study highlights the drastic increases in costs now faced by farmers (see Figure 3). Prior to hybrid varieties, costs
were nil to low (0-9 rupees per kg), but as fertile local varieties became
unavailable, farmers increasingly bought F1 hybrid seeds that for Bt varieties
cost an average 2111 rupees per kg. The average yields in the 4 states studied
ranged from 300 – 1 200 kg per hectare, with low yields in Andhra Pradesh and
Karnataka, and roughly half of the total area studied across the four states
averaging less than 5 000 kg of lint cotton per hectare. Production costs rise
from 8 % of total revenues for those averaging yields of 1 320 kg ha-1
to 21.1 % for those averaging 500 kg ha-1, resulting in a net daily
income of less than 2 US dollars a day. For farmers getting only 300 kg ha-1,
production costs increase to 42.2 % of total revenues, resulting in only 1
dollar a day of net income. Costs as a proportion of revenue decrease
exponentially with yield. These data show that low yields and high variability
are substantial sources of risk, exacerbated by the high costs of Bt
cotton seed and continued use of insecticide.

Figure 3 Cotton yields, revenues
and costs in rain-fed cotton areas

Suicides
driven by economic distress, exacerbated by Bt cotton

Revisiting the raw annual suicide data for four rain-fed, cotton
growing states (Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra) during the
period 2001-2010, the authors found 80 607 of 549 414 suicides were farmers, 87
% of these were males with the numbers peaking in the 30-44 age class. The
authors used statistical regression analysis to assess the relationship between
the
suicides to each state’s averages of proportion of area seeded to rain-fed
cotton, average farm size, cotton growing area, area of Bt cotton, proportion
of area with Bt cotton, and simulated average yield
per hectare that includes the effects of weather. They found that suicides
decrease with increasing farm size and yield, but increase with the area under
Bt cotton cultivation. As the authors’ state: “Farm size and yields are
measures of poverty and risk, while the increase in Bt area is a surrogate for
high costs of Bt technology adoption and continued use of insecticide.”

Previous
studies do not take account of holistic
agro-ecological impacts on yield

This
study disputes many previous studies that have claimed
increased yields as a result of Bt cotton. Bt cotton is not a yield enhancing
technology, but is instead designed to protect the yield potential of the crop from
damage by some lepidopteran pests like the pink bollworm. These studies fail to
take into account the fact that government subsidies for fertiliser during
2003-2011 increased approximately 5-fold, that data from irrigated and rain-fed
cotton were conflated in the average, and that agronomic practices were
improving e.g. planting densities. Further, there has been an upwards trend in
national yields from 1975-2007. Studies supporting these claims attribute rises
in yield from 2004 to Bt cotton, as in [6] for example. However, as shown in
this latest study, adoption of Bt cotton was only 8 % in 2004 while in 2005 it
was 46 %, but the post-2004 yield data appear to be on the same upwards trend
as before Bt cotton introduction.

Previous studies in environments ecologically disrupted
by the insecticide technologies of the 1970s green revolution have also often
been used as the control to which Bt cotton has been
compared. Studies in ecologically disturbed environments tend to be limited to
isolated small plots instead of in a larger landscape and historical framework.
They are known to bias results against untreated checks, inputs such as
fertilizer and water are often not controlled, and industry data have been used
to predict unrealistic estimates of potential yield [7-9]. Critiques of
such studies have found that other factors explain the purported yield
increases attributed to Bt cotton, including “placement bias” of irrigation and
“good growing conditions” [10].

The
changing face of Indian cotton colonialism

The
colonisation of India’s cotton originates long before the Green revolution and
the introduction of GM crops by large multinationals. India was once the global
capital of textiles, and had been growing diploid native “Desi” cotton for 5 000 years without synthetic inputs. During
this time cotton was a target of strong selection and adaptation by Indian
farmers. It was not until the British colonisation of India however that the
practices of cotton cultivation were dramatically altered as Britain drew on
cotton as a raw material to fuel the first half of its industrial revolution.
From 1790, new world cottons were introduced, and later, during the 1970s green
revolution, F1 hybrid varieties that required a high input of insecticide and
fertilisers. Ecological disruption followed due to the destruction of natural
pest enemies, which ended in the resurgence of the pink bollworm, as well as
outbreaks of new secondary pests, and insecticide resistance. On top of all
that, the chemicals affected the health of both people and the environment
[11-13]. As a result, India saw its peak pesticide use in the 1990s, reaching
75 000 tons of active ingredient, 80 % of which were insecticides, with 40-50 %
of the total applied to cotton [14]. Outbreaks of previously minor pests such
as polyphagous bollworm, whitefly and others as a result of organophosphate and
pyrethroids became more damaging than the pink bollworm. Insecticide
resistance also became a problem, with the defoliator S. litura in the
1980s.

Now, India faces the latest attempts by multinationals
to continue on this path with the introduction of Bt crops, which have again
proven to be a total disaster for the people of
India, but a success for corporations in squeezing out every rupee of profit. The authors conclude that seven factors appear to have influenced
the economic distress underlying the suicides, five of which are at the hands
of industry:

(1) Weather-related intrinsic low average
yields and variability;

(2) Increasing
insecticide use before 2002 that increased costs and yield losses due to ecological
disruption and induced pests;

(3) High
costs of Bt cotton seeds, fertilizers, insecticide, and ecological disruption
and crop loss after the introduction of Bt cotton;

(7) The
uncertain effects of weather (e.g., drought or excessive rain as occurred in
2013).

Bt Cotton fails in Burkina Faso, crop being phased out

Cotton is also a major
crop in Burkina Faso, with cotton farmers representing almost one sixth of all
rural households in 2006, making it the largest employment group in the country
[15]; 30 % of the GDP comes from the industry, with rural economies largely
shaped by seasonal cotton yield and market price. Bt cotton was first
commercially grown in 2008 and now accounts for an estimated 73 % of total seed
cotton production [16]. This is about to change however, as the cotton private
sector decided to start phasing out Bt cotton, reducing its share of cotton
production by 20 % in the next 3 years. The Bt cotton has earned a reputation
for poor quality due to shorter fibre lengths and poor yields. These problems
on top of increased costs of Bt seeds, as seen in India are exacerbating
farmer’s impoverishment, driving some farmers to sell their lands [17].

To
conclude

The publication of thorough holistic analysis of the Indian cotton
system is important for understanding what is leaving farmers without any hope
of sustaining a livelihood for themselves and their families. Alternative
systems such as organic farming have already been shown to produce superior
yields [18]. Bt cotton, instead of bringing farmers out of debt, is fuelling
the problem and should be replaced by other short-season, local and organically
grown varieties.

ICAC, International Cotton Advisory Committee. Factors influencing the use of pesticides in cotton in India. Washington DC, USA: Report From the Expert Panel on Social, Environmental and Economic Performance of Cotton Production (SEEP); 2010.

Influence of the Fast Spread of Bt Cotton on Organic Cotton Production - Examples from India and Burkina Faso. ENSSER.org, accessed 13th July 2015 http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/files/4.1-Klaiss-etal-paper.pdf

Comment on this article

Comments may be published. All comments are moderated. Name and email details are required.

Name:

Email address:

Your comments:

Anti spam question:How many legsdoes a tripod have?

There are 3 comments on this article so far. Add your comment above.

Brian Sandle Comment left 14th July 2015 16:04:06I also think the accidental death rate needs looking into. In the 2007-2008 season Indian cotton exports peaked and there was a
1% reduction in accidental death rate in India. That is as opposed to INCREASES of the death rate:
2006 5.2%, 2007 6.8%, 2009 2.7%, 2010 6.2%. Something terrible has been going on.

Rory Short Comment left 14th July 2015 20:08:58This article clearly shows that, the assumption that financially profitable activities for some are ipso facto good for humankind is clearly wrong.

Sam Nzabandora Comment left 4th December 2015 17:05:59The truth of the matter is presented by the Burkina Faso farmers themselves in a documentary available in the following link: http://interpares.ca/news/why-inter-pares-concerned-gmos#video
More information is provided about the final blow to Burkina Faso GM Cotton which came June 2015, when the cotton industry umbrella body, Association Interprofessionnelle du Coton du Burkina (AICB), which includes notably Burkina Faso Textile Fibre Company (SOFITEX), and others, announced that they would withdraw from their contracts with Monsanto and phase out GM cotton altogether over the 3-year period. Key issues of concern included lower yields than promised and low quality cotton. - http://www.pambazuka.net/en/category.php/features/94939